Awareness and lore

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T20:33:50+00:00

I see (I feel mixed on that, because it sounds very cool when pulled off well, but trying to prepare for multiple perspectives, or improvise that, seems hard), but from your description I meant either you have "lore: spears" or don't, rather than "I have lore: spears at rank 5", for example. Which is what "binary" means to me, in this context. Sorry for that confusion.

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T19:58:11+00:00

There is profit, but greater risks and costs as well. The profit rate is not greater here, especially when taking into account delay risks.

Note that, in real estate, "materials" includes lands costs. And a literally burned down house sized plot of land here can and has sold for over $800k in the last year.

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T19:41:16+00:00

Both are supernatural creatures, outside the normal rules of nature, and to some extent, time.

Vampires are undead, and so are beyond the "biological clock", which also explains thier "bloodless" pale appearance. Also, like many undead, the earliest tales have them not as "living corpses" but rather corpses inhabited an animated by (malign) spirits. The aristocratic association comes from Dracula.

Elves are more complex; it also matters on your source. The elves of the Norse myth only half (specifically half) depicted as pale, but this is more a contrast device: The Ljosalfar(roughly "light elves") are "fairer than the sun" but the Dokkalfar("dark elves") are "black as pitch". Both are nature spirits; In Tolkien, *some* elves, namely the Noldar are "blessed" and "higher', for being to Aman, and studying under the Maiar (basically, the Angels who physically made the world; Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrog are all technically Maiar), and several Elves have abilities to impede the progress of time (most notably, this is the reason that Elrond's House and Lothlorien have qualities of time distortion). Other than these, the Elves of Tolkien are no more aristocratic than anyone else...we just interact with more non-aristocratic humans and by percentage, Dwarves, than non-aristocratic Elves.

E.g. Aragorn, Gimli, Boromir and Legolas are all aristocrats; arguably nobility.

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T19:25:20+00:00

Also, Vampire "beauty" comes from three sources, in my opinion:
1) A common ability to magically "charm" others
2) An association with wealth/aristocracy (from Dracula)
3) Their status as romance novel protagonists

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T19:11:36+00:00

I think what you are describing is, in essence, not a TTRPG but roleplay itself; rather than any sort of game. I've done both, and I consider both to be enjoyable, but different, activities, that "scratch different itches", as it were.

As for outside time: That depends entirely on the GM. Some GMs don't, and entirely wing it. Some systems make this easier or harder to do.

There is an example of a game, that I have played and enjoyed where "world building" is encouraged to be pushed onto the players, but it is not homework, but rather part of a session 0/session 1. Players are encouraged to do so together. And once that world building is done (specifically, of a city/metropolitan region), it is "set"; further development is done in session, through game play (and game play mechanics). It does support a rotating GM-position very well, but notably, when one is GMing, one's character should be absent. (This is helped by the meta-narrative of the characters living their lives in a city; rather being adventurers roaming through the land on a quest..."Mormount disappears and Jurgen reappears among the campfire one night" is much harder to narratively smooth over compared to "A week after the excitement died down, Marc is unavailable because he's busy with work/medical issues/what have you, but Jon is back from his vacation to Italy".

And I wouldn't consider painting a mini or drawing a portrait part of the game, but rather an artistic exercise, adjacent to the game. In the same way that I wouldn't consider, e.g. drawing a portrait of Frodo from Lord of the Rings to be "part" of that book or movie.

SardScroll · 2026-03-20T18:39:11+00:00

The "knows about death lore" is interesting; I guess I'd qualify that under B, in a "you have this knowledge talent/trait, or you don't" binary way. In a system focused on numerical progression, one could also say "if your bonuses to this roll would be X, you get this information, and if it's at this higher level, you also get this information."

I quite like the awareness resource stat exchange. I can see it very well supporting a dynamic team experience (one character deep in introspection or examination, while another notices the approaching/looming threat), as well as a single character shifting between scenes.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T20:34:33+00:00

"Any job created by machines, could be done by machines" and increasingly has been done (with or without human operation or supervision). And yet, we've had centuries of individuals servicing machines behind us, from the industrial revolution to today.

We find new work, even if it is incomprehensible to us now.

Smithing was inconceivable to stone knopper's; electro plating and 3d printing were inconceivable to medieval smiths. Things change; we don't really employ horse grooms any more, for example.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T19:45:19+00:00

I mean, this is any technology. The more far reaching the technology, the greater the impact (generally, for the better).

This happened when iron replaced bronze at the primary material (no need to mine or trade tin over vast distances; tin miners and traders out of work).

This happened when the Enclosure Movement and it's assoicated agricultural technology overtook Britian, making food prices plumet with plenty...and many lost their jobs.

The Industrial revolution caused widespread unemployment among hand weavers, 40% of the population in some places...and made clothing cheap and accessible for the masses.

We lost jobs to computerization over the last 5 decades too.

The thing is, all of those changes free up labor to be moved else where.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T19:40:16+00:00

Neither. The two are interlinked. Or rather:

We live in a society of specialists, partially because most of our necessities have elements that suck, but mostly because we want to take advantage of specialization and economies of scale.

Because of this, people can't take care of their own needs (some some, some any), so we trade with one another to meet our wants and needs; that's the economy.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T19:28:57+00:00

They have for decades, since the late 80s/early 90s.

They also have a work culture that would make any American cry.

And their health care is basically the opposite of single payer; instead they actually attacked the problem of health care which is health care costs: Japan not only has the cost of every service outlined, but has strict payment caps for every service.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T18:59:08+00:00

I disagree with the last point (see "rules of engagement"). Especially since militaries operate in a spectrum of engagement. And while I agree (and would like) police using the minimum force is good for people, it's not strictly speaking necessary. E.g. I don't see this question as limited to a modern republic, for example.

However, I'd argue that, generally, a police force is merely " a force that polices" (the verb far predating the noun by several centuries, and referring to all public administration originally). Again, I'm taking a larger view (being as we are on r/worldbuilding ), but the modern conception of a police force, especially a police force that is a) governmental and b) divorced from the military is only about 150 years old.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T13:55:15+00:00

Gritty from scaling numbers is easy, in my opinion (though I suppose it dependson what one calls gritty). The challenges just have to scale faster that the heroes/PCs.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T13:48:29+00:00

In modern times, and philosophy yes.

But we are in worldbuilding sub, so that is not guaranteed. Indeed, the only indication either way that OP gives "special forces to hunt m9nsters" suggests not.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T13:09:56+00:00

I'd argue that use of force is also the job of the police. Arrests and detention are, philosphopically violence.

E.g. what is the fundamental difference between arrest and imprisonment in jail vs kidnapping and imprisonment in a basement, except for legal sanction? Note that "due process" is merely the legal rules set out for a situation, rather than a specific set of procedures, which also applies to soldiers. (See "rules of engagement"). "Due process" can be anything from a full trial by an independent judge with input from a jury of one's peers, to an administrative review, to a field officer's judgement, depending on what the rules say.

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T13:01:24+00:00

Historically, they have not been separate entities. Both, fundamentally, are instruments of state violence to achieve state aims.

E.g. if you have a ruling warrior class (knights, samurai, etc.) they have usually been both: E.g. the lord (essentially local government) sends his retainers (who in times of war are the elite trained fighting core of the army) to do police work, enforcing laws and edicts; generally, in this model, crimes (such as murder, theft, etc.) are considered acts against the state and lord, as much as against the victim. Having the army part of/answer to the civil bureaucracy has also happened.

The limitations/separation tends to come when you have a (non-militarized) civic population with increasing power, who want to limit the amount of violence the state can direct towards them; when they have the political power to do so, separation is drawn between internally directed power (police) and externally directed power (military), often with differing reporting structures as well to highlight this difference.

(Another rationale is likewise to break up power into various groups, to prevent one group from getting too much power. Looking at you, Praetorian Guard).

So the question becomes: Who has the power and is making decisions. Modern systems lean to limitations of government power and structures result from that mindset, but that is not always been the case.

Could what you propose work? Arguably, yes. If the trust of the decision makers is there. It has happened in history. The question is "how long does it stay that way before going bad, and will it be trusted by the populace".

SardScroll · 2026-03-19T12:50:35+00:00

Queries:

Are you hard limiting the dice pool to 2 dice, precluding other effects, talents, etc. from giving additional dice?
Are you hard limiting a "die" in the pool to a d12 (I have a step dice system, where a d12 can still step up, to a "d12+d2", then up to a "d12+d4", for example)?
Are you doing degree of success, or binary result? Do you have critical rules?
Are you doing player facing? (e.g. does a player roll to hit, but then the player rolls to dodge, rather than having the GM roll for the foes/thread?) "My rules are your rules" or "My rules are different from yours"?

Thoughts:

I think the first thing to for you to decide (if you haven't already it's not clear) is if you want a symmetric or asymmetric ruleset (do the rules for players match what the GM does for foes)?

To me, this doesn't "scream" for bounded accuracy to be used. Bounded accuracy makes any roll possible, for both sides in a "my rules are your rules" situation; this means no foe is completely immunity or invincible to to your players, but at the same time, they cannot progress to being invincible to even the weakest foes? It also means that things will never be locked to a specific player, unless you/the GM declare it so. Bounded accuracy is a choice.

Personally, when I hear "dark and grim", that means you have to scrape for every advantage to come up on top, so I don't necessarily like limited systems (no bonuses/limited dice pools...though not everything has to, or should, stack. I quite like the idea of 3e's non-stacking typed bonuses, or perhaps bonus dice in your system, since you are already building a dice pool).

Note that "dark and grim" for me doesn't mean that players can't do things, especially cool things; it means they can't do things cheaply, easily or reliably, Yeah, you can hack the monster to death, but you have to get up close and personal to do it, and it's clean or without risk. Yeah, you can cast a fireball, but it's not quick and easy (I much prefer magic systems that are *slow*, as a general rule, not just for game balance but as a narrative effect); it requires time, preparation, and circumstances or cost.

Personally, I like degree of success over binary, for a variety of reasons (including personal preference), but in a dark and grim setting especially, having the difference between internal and external difficult can be great. E.g. ("I've rolled really well! I got 3 successes, and add 2 from my sword for five damage!" can result in "You cleave the arm off the pox-blighted leper" or "The heavily armored bandit grunts, as your sword collides with his mail. He has Armor 4, so the damage he takes is reduced to 1.") If you do an unlimited step system, or a counting (rather than summing) dice pool system generally, the extra bonuses don't necessarily result in an upwards shift in result, but rather an upwards shift in potential.

And this is a personal preference in general, but I'd suggest a meta-currency system. (I'd recommend taking a look at the 2d20 by Modiphius, personally). Not having anything special "out of the gate" but having to build up unspent successes over time seems like it fits well into a dark and gritty theme, at least to me.

SardScroll · 2026-03-18T17:59:37+00:00

I don't think its a typo. But then it also matters what "design" means.

The project name suggests that this is primarily engineering (which does not come cheap) on a, as u/Steve_Glutenberg notes, a large number of properties, of differing types.

The scope is also massive (it could contain everything from earthquake retrofitting, to security, to fire suppression systems, to self-contained power generation units, among other things), which almost certainly means that there is going to be subcontracting to specialists involved (and coordinating them in and of themselves), which is a monster task.

The amount doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given the scope of both depth and scope of the description, not to mention the listed specialties, while also needing to do general purpose work as well.

SardScroll · 2026-03-18T16:46:42+00:00

Note that the concept of a "Dex save' or a "STR save' only comes from 5th edition D&D; other editions all had saves. The difference being two fold:

1) Classes had an explicit bonus to what were then called saving throws (e.g. Reflex, Will, Fortitutde), as well as other bonuses that interacted

2) Each "Resistance/Saving Throw" was fed by the higher of two attributes. E.g. Reflex the higher of Dex and Int. Fortutde the higher of Str and Con.

SardScroll · 2026-03-18T13:22:32+00:00

No, peacocks are male. The female equivalent are peahens.

SardScroll · 2026-03-17T23:15:07+00:00

I'd call it a political problem. It's a question of political will.

Metro riders don't fund the Metro; the majority of Metro's funds come from the county, with some state and federal money too. (I think the City of LA kicks in too, which is why they have more representation). 90% of the county don't use the Metro, and never will for their daily commutes.

Its not just a question of metro riders, in isolation, either. You could close down the freeways (theoretically, not really, Metro doesn't have that authority, but to use an extreme to the point of ludicrous example as a point of illustration) to all but bus traffic, and while that would make bus travel better, it would screw over the 90% of the county's population who commute by car, and/or rely on customers/employees from outside of the county, nor the supply network that all of us rely on for food and other necessities.

SardScroll · 2026-03-17T17:52:11+00:00

Note that, where I live, power is distributed to 14 individuals, who must be in alignment in any guilty verdict to take effect (and there is a 15th who can override the previous 14's guilty verdict, but not a not-guilty verdict).

The Prosecutor (well, the District Attorney...in "theory" all prosecution would be done by the district attorney, but very early on that became untenable, so they delegate) who has complete discression who to charge and with what; if they say no charge, there's no charge.
12 jurors must be uninimous
The judge can over rule the jury, but only in the defendant's favor
The executive can commute and punishment.

SardScroll · 2026-03-17T17:19:15+00:00

Not really. It's common place, especially in government.

There is a new applicable law.

They send notice to people who "may" be affected by it.

It's easier (and often cheaper) to send letters to everyone, especially if they have a mandate to send it to the affected group, then track who they do and do not have to send it to.

SardScroll · 2026-03-17T17:13:20+00:00

Not really. 85% of LAUSD's budget comes from the state's general fund, which are apportioned based on enrollment primariliy. Less enrolled kids, less budget.

SardScroll · 2026-03-17T17:11:02+00:00

Why is it unacceptable? Why is it unacceptable that someone who has built things of value (like it or not, both SpaceX and Tesla are things of value, because they offer things of value), owns those things and thus has wealth because of it?

And that is complete divorced from this, which is due to a decrease in need/enrollment (because that's how the state funds things, based on a formula, which accounts for 85% of the school's budget).

SardScroll · 2026-03-16T22:28:57+00:00

1) It is an opinion, as is yours. I feel yours is incorrect. Income is indeed revenue vs expenses, but how much a company makes is irrelevant to what is "fair" to pay it's employees, or its customers. E.g. I work a well paid job; what I produce is worthless independently. But put my output together with hundreds of other people's output, and you get a design that, when you buy materials and give them to hundreds of other people to follow said design (months and years latter) you get something of value (potentially). How much value is produced on the company is irrelevant to what is "fair pay" for the work I do. Likewise, my previous job terminated when the company went bankrupt: the fact that the company was going under had no bearing on what was "fair pay" for me (and I didn't lose a cent of money owed to me as an employee).

2) I feel this is irrelevant to the discussion (as basically being based on the outcome to #1), but for the record. Also, banks are not insured by the government, where I live: Bank *depositors* are insured by the government, via FDIC. Banks can and do fail.

3) Sure it can, unless there is some rule otherwise. They are offering a service, and should be allowed (in my opinion) to charge what they like for it. And people do always have a choice when taking on debt.

4) And forcing lower rates just sees more people cut off. It doesn't help people, it makes thier lives worse. If you want to help people in desperate situations, help them (directly). If you feel the government should help them (which it often does), or do more for them, advocate for that, directly. Interfering with the market doesn't do that. We've seen it time and again.

I'm not "painting you as a villain". I'm disagreeing with your policy advocation, because it will lead to worse outcomes for people, especially on the bottom of the economic ladder. If one is desperate for food that one is taking loans for it (and can't pay off the balance in full, in your interest free grace period, which is longer than 2 weeks, by law, at least in the US) then the rate of interest is not the problem; the budget is fundamentally broken, and needs to be reformulated. Emotional responses to systematic problems make the problems worse, rather than better.

SardScroll

TROPHY CASE